_______________
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated March 27, 2017 vice
Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza.
* FIRST DIVISION.
1 Referred to as Vilma Severina A. Dimacuha elsewhere in the
Records.
298
299
300
301
CAGUIOA, J.:
The policy of ensuring the autonomy of local
governments was not intended to create an imperium in
imperio and install intra-sovereign political subdivisions
independent of the sovereign state.2 As agents of the state,
local governments should bear in mind that the police
power devolved to them by law must be, at all times,
exercised in a manner consistent with the will of their
principal.
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari3 (Petition) filed
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court against the Decision4
dated May 25, 2010 (Assailed Decision) and Resolution5
dated December 30, 2010 (Assailed Resolution) in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 90373 rendered by the Tenth Division of the Court
of Appeals (CA). The Assailed Decision and Resolution
stem from an appeal from the Decision6 dated June 29,
2007 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Batangas
City (RTC), Branch 84 in SP Civil Case Nos. 7924-7925,
declaring as invalid Ordi-
_______________
2 Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 482 Phil. 544, 571; 439
SCRA 326, 349 (2004).
3 Rollo, pp. 3-21.
4 Id., at pp. 315-333. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D.
Carandang, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Manuel M.
Barrios, concurring.
5 Id., at pp. 335-336.
6 Id., at pp. 64-90. Penned by Presiding Judge Paterno V. Tac-an.
302
_______________
303
_______________
13 Id., at p. 193.
14 Id., at pp. 194-196.
15 Batangas City Ordinance No. 3, S. 2001, Sec. 3; id., at p. 25.
304
305
The Assailed Ordinance was approved by the city mayor
on June 7, 2001.
Heavy industries subject of the Assailed Ordinance had
until May 28, 2006 to comply with its provisions.17 Among
the facilities affected by the Assailed Ordinance is PSPC’s
Tabangao Refinery.
Proceedings before the RTC
On May 23, 2006, PSPC filed against Batangas City and
the Sangguniang Panlungsod a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity (PSPC Petition) before the RTC praying that the
Assailed Ordinance be declared null and void. The PSPC
Petition was raffled to Branch 84, and docketed as SP Civil
Case No. 7924.18 Thereafter, SPEX filed a petition-in-
intervention (Intervention) praying for the same relief.19
JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation (JG Summit) and
First Gas Power Corporation (First Gas) filed similar peti-
_______________
306
_______________
20 Id., at p. 93.
21 Id., at pp. 93, 96.
22 Id., at p. 138.
23 Id., at p. 149.
24 Id., at p. 138.
25 Id., at p. 149.
26 Id., at pp. 139, 150.
307
_______________
308
_______________
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id., at pp. 265-266.
35 Id., at pp. 30-31.
36 Id., at pp. 64-90.
37 Id., at pp. 89-90.
309
The RTC also noted that the Sangguniang Panlungsod
failed to consult the NWRB before enacting the Assailed
Ordinance, thereby encroaching upon its authority.40
_______________
310
41 Id.
43 Id., at pp. 84-85.
42 Id., at pp. 30-31, 92-93.
44 Id., at pp. 101-102.
311
_______________
312
appeal filed against PSPC and SPEX for lack of merit. The
relevant portions of the Assailed Decision read:
313
VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 313
City of Batangas vs. Philippine Shell Petroleum
Corporation
the purposes of the police measure and the means employed for
its accomplishment. Arbitrary invasion of personal rights and
those pertaining to private property will not be allowed even
under the guise of protecting public interest. It has not been
sufficiently demonstrated that there exists no other means less
intrusive of private rights that would equally be effective for the
accomplishment of the same purpose.
With the foregoing premises considered, there is no more
necessity to address the other errors raised in the instant appeal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision
dated 29 June 2007 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Batangas City, Branch 84, in SP Civil Case No. 7924, declaring
invalid City Ordinance No. 3, S. 2001 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis supplied)
Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod filed a
Motion for Reconsideration53 (MR) dated June 21, 2010,
which the CA Tenth Division subsequently denied through
the Assailed Resolution. The CA Tenth Division found that
the MR merely reiterated the arguments relied upon in the
appeal, which were already passed upon in the Assailed
Decision.54
Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod
received a copy of the Assailed Resolution on January 13,
2011.
On January 25, 2011, Batangas City filed the present
Petition.55 Notably, the Petition does not name the
Sangguniang Panlungsod as party,56 and only the
signature of then city
_______________
314
_______________
57 Id., at pp. 19-20. There being no indication that the Petition was
likewise filed on behalf of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, Batangas City
was deemed as sole petitioner hereunder.
58 Id., at pp. 304-307.
59 Id., at pp. 340-343.
60 Id., at pp. 353-391.
61 Id., at pp. 499-501.
62 Id., at p. 500.
63 Id., at pp. 505-513.
315
_______________
64 Id., at p. 13.
65 Id., at p. 14.
66 Id., at pp. 7-12.
67 Id., at p. 16.
68 Id.
316
Considering the nature of the issues involved in the
present Petition, and the lack of any evidence showing that
Batangas City’s error resulted from anything more than
inadvertence, the Court resolves to permit the amendment
of the Petition in the interest of substantial justice.
_______________
317
_______________
70 Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Atienza, Jr., 568 Phil. 658, 699-700;
545 SCRA 92, 135 (2008).
71 Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 956,
968; 329 SCRA 314, 325 (2000).
72 Id.
318
_______________
319
320
In this Petition, the Court is called upon to determine
whether the control and regulation of the use of water may
be made subject of a city ordinance under the regime of the
Water Code — a national statute governing the same
subject matter.
The Water Code governs the ownership, appropriation,
utilization, exploitation, development, conservation and
protection of water resources.78 Under Article 3 thereof,
water resources are placed under the control and
regulation of the government through the National Water
Resources Council, now the NWRB.79 In turn, the privilege
to appropriate and use water is one which is exclusively
granted and regulated by the State through water permits
issued by the NWRB.80 Once granted, these water permits
continue to be valid save only for reasons spelled out under
the Water Code itself.81
_______________
321
_______________
322
323
While the Joint Decision resolves the JG Summit and
First Gas appeals, these cases, pertain to the same appeal
filed by Batangas City and the Sangguniang Panlungsod
from the Decision of the RTC nullifying the Assailed
Ordinance. As aptly put by the CA in the present case:
This Court, not being a trier of facts, accords the highest
degree of respect to the findings of fact of the trial court,
especially where, as here, they have been affirmed by the
CA; accordingly, these findings will not be disturbed. To be
sure, such findings are binding and conclusive upon this
Court,87 and it is not the Court’s function in a petition for
review on certiorari to examine, evaluate or weigh anew
the probative
_______________
324
_______________
88 Id.
89 127 Phil. 306; 20 SCRA 849 (1967).
90 Id., at p. 315; p. 857.
91 Rollo, p. 73.
325